Why Indiana's RFRA Law is Different

Yes, because wanting the exact same rights as everyone else is bad. Uh huh. Wouldn't have this problem if all those straight folks weren't
out there, being straight in public, forcing us to accept them... Have they no decency?!?

Slightly off topic, remember in the 80s all businesses had "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" signs hanging behind their cash
registers? I'm beginning to realize that claim was false.

Gay, straight, discriminatory, or not, I personally believe ANY non publicly traded, single or family owned business owner should retain 100% of his
or her right to bluntly refuse service to anyone for any reason. It's their money and their reputation on the line and they should be fully
permitted to risk both and run their business however they see fit. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an implicit right of always feeling welcomed
or accommodated. There is, however, the First Amendment freedom of speech and a SCOTUS decision that declares money to be part of exercising that
speech (thus a business owner's dollars are their freedom), a Forth Amendment which grants the right of ownership and security in said ownership, and
the 9th amendment which states one individual's perceived rights do not trump another's enumerated rights.

If somebody doesn't want your business, get over it and take your money elsewhere. You're not special, nor should you be entitled to any special
considerations. Just like if I was to walk into a Raider bar wearing Bronco gear and the bartender refused to serve me... wait a minute, I'd never
walk into a Raider bar because I'm not an idiot and I don't like giving people that dislike me money.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
As I have had a little time to cool off a bit over this one, some thoughts have popped into my noggin :

1.) How are businesses planning on enforcing this? Are they going to ask every customer their orientation? If I visit Indiana ( not bloody likely
any time soon mutter mutter) will; be forced to purchase a special ID card...one that says if I'm straight, gay or attracted to sheep, like I am
beginning to assume Mr. Pence might? ( Yes, the snark is strong with this one.)

2.) What happens when a Muslim denies service to a Christian or Jew? (I have my popcorn ready). What about a Presbyterian and a Catholic? Sikh and
Buddhist? Baptist and anyone not Baptist?

3.) For that matter, what happens when a gay businessman decides to not serve a straight person? More popcorn!

4.) Since Indianapolis has already given a resound Oh Hell No to this piece of drek, does this mean we can possibly see two states forming?
Indianapolis and Bigotistan?

5.) At what point does your "religious freedom" to discriminate cease to interfere with my freedom from your thinly veiled
bigotry masquerading as religion?

Sorry. This has been a hot button topic for me, felt a little snarky humour might be useful.

How would businesses "enforce" this or would even have to? This is simply the state saying they won't prosecute a private individual for a matter
of religious conscience. It does not say that a business owner cannot fire an employee who refuses to provide service, it just limits the state.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Can someone show me some lines from the NEW TESTAMENT (since isn't that what Christians are supposed to go by?) where it says "thou shalt not
conduct business or consort with homosexuals"?

Not required for Constitutional protection of First Amendment rights.

I'll use this recent scenario as an example of why the "but it isn't explicitly in the Bible" argument fails. nypost.com...

The First Amendment would likely make a broad ban on the burqa in the United States unconstitutional, though some states have restricted its
wearing for such activities as obtaining a driver’s license.

The Islamic world is experiencing a rise in women wearing the burqa claiming it to be part of the Islamic dress code. Whether it is worn by choice
or force is open to debate as very few women are able to, or prefer not to voice an opinion on the matter. Those who have, generally argue against the
compulsory (by law as in Afghanistan) wearing of this garment with a minority claiming the right to wear it citing Quranic and prophetic
instruction.

So I'm gonna say that religious texts take a backseat in the US court of law to religious practices and religious dogma. In that case, there's no
reason this law should fail a SCOTUS challenge.

I despise the fact that people are even catagorized and then have to be specifically protected. Why "protected groups?" Why can't it just be
protections that extend to every citizen without race, sexual orientation, or anything else being a qualifying factor in order to make them valid for
legal protection?

Am I one of the few who remembers this verbiage from the fourteenth amendment?:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.

We should not need to specify catagories of people in laws--every person is constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the laws.

Because making protected classes is how one panders for votes and enables more governmental control over the individual.

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people
don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.

I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It
restricts the government.

The "to the back of the bus" bullcrap, is no longer allowed in this day and age.

Actually it is--see racial preferences in governmental hiring, contracts, and university admissions. "Back of the bus" is perfectly acceptable in
our society as long as it follow a particular politically correct narrative.

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people don't
understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.

I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It
restricts the government.

It should, but it doesn't.

The 14th is the new hammer under which government can do everything for you. Or haven't you noticed?

Well, everything for you unless you happen to belong to the perceived majority class, and then you're too equal.

Remember, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. -- You can interpret that in all kinds of ways these days.

Yes, because wanting the exact same rights as everyone else is bad. Uh huh. Wouldn't have this problem if all those straight folks weren't
out there, being straight in public, forcing us to accept them... Have they no decency?!?

I would agree that we shouldn't, but we also seem to forget the 1st Amendment too. People are free to practice their religion. What some people
don't understand is that religious belief and practice for the deeply religious does not end at the church door. It goes into your daily life.

So with this we have issues of the 1st and 14th conflicting.

I don't see it that way. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law, it does not ensure accommodation by private individuals. It
restricts the government.

It should, but it doesn't.

The 14th is the new hammer under which government can do everything for you. Or haven't you noticed?

Well, everything for you unless you happen to belong to the perceived majority class, and then you're too equal.

Remember, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. -- You can interpret than in all kinds of ways these days.

Well, quite often what the law says and what Marxists want it to say are different things.

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse
to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.

If arranging the flowers somehow made her part of the wedding, and because these people were gay -- it absolutely does have to do with discriminating
against people because of their sexual orientation.

If she claims to be Christian, she ought to be "christ-like" and follow the example set by Jesus.

1) The speed at which it went from introduction to the signing by the governor.
2) The vagueness of the language.
3) The writers of this law, the architects of such.
4) The timing. As this law was written and implemented when, in one month they US Supreme Court is going to hear the case on same sex marriage.
5) That this law was redundant and had no bearing on the state what so ever. Same sex couples and the LGBT community have no laws that protect them
at all in the state.
6) That the only people who were there at the signing, with a pictures are all notorious anti LGBT community.

This is a bad law, of that there is no doubt. It opens doors that should have been kept closed and ultimately it is highly exploitable. This is not
going to end well for the state of Indiana, and even when asked about the nature of the law, the governor gave the old 2 step rhetoric. I do not
trust this at all, nor should anyone, as it is going to affect everyone in the state.

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse
to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.

The thing about religious freedom in the US is that it is not up to the state to determine.

IMHO, it is stupid and there is no god and if there was, I doubt he'd care who sold cakes to whom, however, in a free society people should have that
right to make such decisions themselves.

I don't disagree about Constitutional rights -- but this is being peddled as a "religious" thing. People's "Religious rights" ...

I want to know where in their religion it says not to give a specific person service? It sounds to me as if they are using their religion as an excuse
to not serve someone because they "just don't like them".

If they don't like them for whatever reason -- they ought to admit to it and not hide behind their religion.

But much of Christianity draws from sources other than the New Testament, MM. This is why there are hundreds of different denominations and even
schisms within denominations. Catholicism, for instance, relies as much on dogma as it does on the Bible.

As to the New Testament directly commenting, be careful. I understand what you are actually asking is "Did Jesus ever say anything against it?" I
warn you here because the overall New Testament absolutely disdains homosexuality. Paul's first epistle to the Romans discusses natural relations
between a man and a woman and decried the veering away from such a pairing. Paul told the Corinthians to not be unrighteous and included fornication,
unsanctified, and effeminate males among the those who God views as unrighteous. Paul's letter to Timothy also calls homosexuality "contrary to
sound doctrine."

To argue that there is no defensible religious basis for rejection of homosexuality is simply not accurate.

Jesus was also crucified for his beliefs and flat refusal to veer from his course. Seems like Jesus would consider "she refused to sell a cake to
me" to be a pretty minor first world problem... but I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know the mind of God or speak to what He would or would
not do in any given situation, so I stress "seems".

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.